Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001718 dated 23052008
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 29 July 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri G D Mathur
230 SFS, Mansarovar,
Jaipur - 302 020.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bank of India,
Regional Office,
Jaipur
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri R.K. Srivastava, Chief Manager Law,
(ii) Shri Rajiv Khurana, Chief Manager,
(iii) Shri M.S.Kohli
This case was heard on 22 July 2010.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 23 May 2008,
requested the CPIO to inform him about the loss caused to the bank in the
account of M/s MJM Diamond Tools Private Ltd. In his reply dated 14 June
2008, the CPIO informed him that in the absence of any specific details such as
the exact date of the loan etc., it was not possible for them to provide any
information. The Appellant preferred an appeal against this response on 3 July
2008. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal in his order dated 1
August 2008 in which he observed that the desired information could not be
disclosed as exempt under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information Act. Once
again, the Appellant sent another application to the head office of the bank on
CIC/SM/A/2009/001718
15 August 2008 seeking the same information. This application was transferred
by the head office to the Regional Office, Jaipur on 16 September 2008. On not
getting any further reply, the Appellant approached the State Information
Commission of Rajasthan which transferred the second appeal to the CIC.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Jaipur studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in both
in the Jaipur studio and in our chamber. We heard their submissions. It is true
that the Appellant had sought a number of details regarding the loan account of
a third party customer of the bank. As consistently held by the CIC, ordinarily
such information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) and (e) of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, in this case, he has also asked for a
specific letter which the regional office had sent to the zonal office in the matter.
During the hearing, he clarified that at the time of his retirement from the
service of the bank in 2007, the regional office had written to the zonal
office/head office advising withholding of his retirement dues presumably
because of the loss caused to the bank on the above loan account. We think
that he is entitled to get a copy of that letter.
4. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10
working days from the receipt of this order, a copy of the above letter, namely,
the one written by the regional office to the zonal office/head office in 2007 at
the time of his retirement. If this letter contains any specific detail about the loan
account of any third party customer, such references may be severed before
providing the copy of the letter.
5. The case is, thus, disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
CIC/SM/A/2009/001718
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2009/001718